Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 02:34pm PT
|
"The problem is, is that the way [Obama] has done it over the last [three] years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 4[3] presidents – #4[4] added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $[13] trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic."
that's right..."U-N-P-A-T-R-I-O-T-I-C"
Dick Cheney: "Debt Doesn't Matter"
What, exactly, was that money spent on?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 03:00pm PT
|
DT, why don't you outline your economic strategy for the country at this time...
It would be nice if your ideas weren't simply along the lines of 'x' or 'y' policy instituted by Obama was wrong. Original, creative ideas would be interesting to hear about.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 03:07pm PT
|
DT?
<crickets>
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 03:14pm PT
|
Rox, of course you are correct about the value that the stock market adds to the value of companies. It's just paper trading. My dad used to fume at how market weasels would make million$ trading paper, essentially adding zero value to the system, but taking it out of people's hard earned dollars.
A company sells stocks (ownership in the company) in order to raise cash needed to run the business. Folks purchase stocks in hopes that the company does a good job at running the business, in which case the value of the business increases, so the value of their stocks increases. All this makes good sense, no?
Brokerage firms determine the value of a stock using a complex formula, which in the end depends upon a magical multiplier (M, or M1, or some such). OK, things are still fairly stable with regards to stock prices/values.
Next comes the brokerage firms who sell the issues. Here's where the devils enter the system. Each morning, the teams of brokers are given briefs by their bosses on what they should promote to their clients. When folks buy stocks, their perceived value increases (hey, if everybody is buying this thing, so should I!).
Take a look at the .Com boom for a good example of inflated stock values.
Goldman promoted their toxic assets, knowing they'd explode. Sweet, the justice department gave them a pass, letting them settle for a scratch without going to court. They made billion$, paid a small settlement, and because of that, the millions of folks they screwed were unable to sue for retribution.
On and on, the sh#t goes on.
The SEC & Justice Department are corrupt criminals. The Repugs tout Planned Parenthood as the Black Sheep that's bringing our country down. Meanwhile, the real crooks are getting away with stealing Billion$ of US tax payer dollars, with nary a word.
Don't worry about it though, because all is good in the White Castle. Be assured, the Justice Department is shredding the documents that would implicate any of the fat cats...
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 04:10pm PT
|
Hi Donald, here's a couple of questions for you. Truly, I'm interested in how you address these.
Seriously, Donald, do you really think Carter was the cause of the inflation of the '70s? Is that Why Ford started the "Whip Inflation Now" program? Is that why Nixon imposed the wage and price freeze in '71? Because they knew Jimmy Carter would cause inflation in 1976?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 04:11pm PT
|
TWO THIRDS of the National Debt has been added by REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.
WHY, would anyone "concerned" about spending, vote Republican?
There is NO denying the facts, only a fool believes what he has been spoon fed to believe.
Vote Republican if you believe that government should intrude into the private lives of
American citizens, but do NOT vote Republican if you care about deficits.
Are you full of sh#t, or do you REALLY care about SPENDING?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 04:47pm PT
|
Nice chart, Donald.
Why don't you present your analysis on how much the Republicans added to the debt?
You can start with Reagan's wild spending and then present Bush's drunken spree.
And then, when you have shown you have command of actual truth and facts, you can
then present how much the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy have added to the debt.
Come on Donald, no more vague talking points, analyze just WHO has done the "spending".
I suggest you use the non partisan Congressional Budget Office for your source of FACTS.
Also, please present your analysis of discretional versus non discretional spending, ok?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 04:50pm PT
|
What constitutes "nondiscretional" spending, Norton? Why is it "nondiscretional?" Who committed our government to spending it?
John
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 04:51pm PT
|
oops, i misquoted; here's the actual quote:
"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic."
and who said this?
wait for it...
oh snap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q
sorry hedge, barry's deficit spending FACTS come from cbs:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html
now, go ahead, claim cbs is a right-wing hack machine and refuse to offer your own sources
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 05:02pm PT
|
You can see in this graph that the anti-inflation policies of Nixon/Ford were beginning to work.
Quite true, with the understanding that what the Fed did was not entirely within a president's control.
I began working as an econometrician and economic forecasting in 1973, in the middle of the wage and price controls and the start of the Arab oil embargo. Nothing I studied at Berkeley remotely resembled the American economy then.
Under Ford, in particular, the economy took the medicine needed to lower interest rates, moderate inflation and grow. Under Carter, it reverted. It was rather like a patient taking half a course of antibiotics. The sickness returned with more virulence. We in the business forecasting world saw it coming, but the Washington powers that be weren't interested in what we were saying because we had the wrong economic religion.
It's still like that today. If there's any consensus among business economists, it's that we are in danger of doing too much, rather than too little, to "fix" the problems. Try selling that to the electorate.
John
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 05:32pm PT
|
You can see in this graph that the anti-inflation policies of Nixon/Ford were beginning to work. The policies of Carter reversed that trend leading to a much worsened economy and a terrible recession. The voters threw Carter out and Ronaldus Maxus restored the economy. You can see the low level of inflation by 1983.
Yes, Nixon's wage and price freeze in 1971 was incredible effective!
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 06:23pm PT
|
Rox, of course you are correct about the value that the stock market adds to the value of companies. It's just paper trading. My dad used to fume at how market weasels would make million$ trading paper, essentially adding zero value to the system, but taking it out of people's hard earned dollars.
A company sells stocks (ownership in the company) in order to raise cash needed to run the business. Folks purchase stocks in hopes that the company does a good job at running the business, in which case the value of the business increases, so the value of their stocks increases. All this makes good sense, no?
Brokerage firms determine the value of a stock using a complex formula, which in the end depends upon a magical multiplier (M, or M1, or some such). OK, things are still fairly stable with regards to stock prices/values.
Next comes the brokerage firms who sell the issues. Here's where the devils enter the system. Each morning, the teams of brokers are given briefs by their bosses on what they should promote to their clients. When folks buy stocks, their perceived value increases (hey, if everybody is buying this thing, so should I!).
Take a look at the .Com boom for a good example of inflated stock values.
Goldman promoted their toxic assets, knowing they'd explode. Sweet, the justice department gave them a pass, letting them settle for a scratch without going to court. They made billion$, paid a small settlement, and because of that, the millions of folks they screwed were unable to sue for retribution.
On and on, the sh#t goes on.
The SEC & Justice Department are corrupt criminals. The Repugs tout Planned Parenthood as the Black Sheep that's bringing our country down. Meanwhile, the real crooks are getting away with stealing Billion$ of US tax payer dollars, with nary a word.
Don't worry about it though, because all is good in the White Castle. Be assured, the Justice Department is shredding the documents that would implicate any of the fat cats...
There was a superb book that really explained a lot of the bad side of this from the inside called "liars poker: rising through the wreckage on wall street" by Michael Lewis , a superb writer, and an excellent read.
Available for 1 cent used on amazon, is that a deal or what!
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 06:47pm PT
|
At this time:
1. Defeat Obama's policies and throw him out of office next year
2. Elect as many true conservatives to Congress as possible.
3. Cut, cap, balance
4. Work towards a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
5. Get Mr hedge elected as SOTY
Finally, we get to some truth.
Notice, that in the list, there is actually only one fiscal action, #3 (#4 is part of #3). Let's look
H.R. 2560 - The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011.
Title I: "Cut"
Title I is, appropriately named, "Cut." It's meant to cut the 2012 federal budget. Sec. 101 would cap discretionary spending budget authority for FY 2012 at $1 trillion, 19.4 billion and would cap FY 2012 discretionary outlays at 1.225 trillion.
Just for comparison, FY2010 (which is the last year we had a real budget), the total discretionary budget was $1.378 trillion, so that would be a cut of $349 billion for budget authority and $153 billion in outlays. And that's not taking into account any increase in defense spending between FY 2010 and FY 2011. Based on FY2010 numbers, a $349 billion cut in appropriations would result in a essentially a 50% cut in non-defense discretionary funding, if no defense funding were cut from FY2010 levels. Even if one went with the $153 billion in outlays, that's a 21% cut.
Just for some scope, to make up $349 billion, we would have to eliminate, entirely, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture (give or take a billion).
(To make up $153 billion, if you want to use that number, you would merely only have to cut Health and Human Services and Transportation, plus another 2 or 3 billion).
If one were to carry that cut over 10 years, one would be looking at $3.5 trillion in cuts from the discretionary budget alone based on budget authority, or $1.53 trillion using the outlays number, assuming budget growth is equal to inflation.
Title I also caps the money that can be spent on the "Global War on Terrorism" (their term in the bill) at $126.5 billion.
Title I then also caps direct, or mandatory spending, at $680.7 billion, exempting Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Benefits and Services, and national debt interest (note: Medicaid is NOT on the exempted list). This may or may not result in any mandatory cuts in 2012. Based on FY 2010 numbers (PDF), that would be a cut of $60.3 billion (taking out gains from TARP), though would be pretty much even with expected expenses based on FY 2012 projections made in January 2011.
So that's the "Cut" section. meant for FY 2012.
Title II: "Cap"
Section 201(a), as far as I can tell, removes section (c)(4) from this piece of the US Code, which eliminates certain discretionary budget categories, including "highway category," "mass transit category," "conservation spending category," "Federal and State Land and Water Conservation Fund sub-category," among others. I don't think this prohibits funds from being spent for these things, but it appears to eliminate them as distinct budget categories. It then adds to the US Code, this:
"The term ‘GDP’, for any fiscal year, means the gross domestic product during such fiscal year consistent with Department of Commerce definitions."
Section 201(b) then limits total outlays (both on and off budget) to:
•21.7% of GDP in 2013
•20.8% of GDP in 2014
•20.2% of GDP in 2015
•20.1% of GDP in 2016
•19.9% of GDP in 2017
•19.7% of GDP in 2018
•19.9% of GDP in 2019, 2020, and 2021
Just as comparison, federal outlays for the past 40 years have averaged at about 20.6% of GDP, though FY 2009 and FY 2010 averaged at 24.4% of GDP.
Finally 201(b) says that if outlays are over, sequestration measures should be taken, though Medicare, Social Security, military pay, military retirement, veterans benefits, and national debt interest are exempt.
Title III: Balance
This section extends the debt limit to $16.7 trillion (an increase of $2.3 trillion), but only unless and until a balanced budget amendment as introduced in H. J. Res. 1, S. J. Res. 10, or H. J. Res. 56 (or any comparable amendment) is passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and sent to the states.
So what do these amendments do?
•Not shockingly, they all require a balanced budget. H.J. Res. 1 allows this to be exempted by a 3/5 vote in both Houses. S. J. Res. 10 and H. J. Res. 56 require a 2/3 vote to override this provision
•They spending at 18% of GDP and requires a 2/3 vote of both Houses to override this requirement
•They require the president to submit a balanced budget to Congress
•They require that any increase in revenue require a 2/3 vote in Congress to pass
•They require a 3/5 vote in both Houses to increase the debt limit
•They allow the waiving of the balanced budget requirement, GDP requirement, presidential budget requirement, and debt ceiling requirement in the case a declaration of war is in effect. H.J. Res. 1 also allows the waiving of the revenue increase requirement.
•Ditto on the waiving in the case of the US being engaged in "a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security." H. J. Res. 1 would allow Congress to declare such a state by a majority vote. The other two amendments would require a 3/5 vote. Those two would also require that any additional spending be limited to the military conflict in question.
•S. J. Res. 10 and H. J. Res. 56 say that no court may require an increase in revenue
•H. J. Res. 1 would take effect in 2 years after ratification, unless it is ratified after 2016, in which case it would take effect in 1 year.
•S. J. Res 10 and H. J. Res 56 would take effect 5 years after ratification
•None of the amendments have a ratification time limit
So what does this do? It does several things, very few of them good.
It would force federal spending to be at a level that we haven't consistently seen since before World War II, as there has not been a stretch of more than 5 years in a row that the federal government has spent at 18% GDP or less since. In fact, only two years - 2000 and 2001 - has this been the case since 1974.
It would likely gut entitlement spending. The average GDP in 2010 was $14.660 trillion. A 18% cap would have required a spending cap of $2.639 trillion, which would have required a cut of about $913 billion from the budget that actually passed. Even if all discretionary spending, including defense, were cut by 50%, we'd still have to cut $224 billion from mandatory programs. Assuming defense were untouched, we'd have to cut $556 billion from mandatory programs, or about 25.5%. If Social Security, Mediare, and Medicaid were left intact, that would mean ALL other mandatory spending, sans interest on the national debt, would have to be eliminated, including food stamps, veterans benefits, unemployment, student loans, etc.
The federal budget could very well be reduced to defense spending, Social Security, Mediare, Medicaid, and national debt interest and absolutely else - assuming that revenues actually reached 18% (and that's happened under two of President Bush's, and none of President Obama's budgets). If not, then even more cuts would be necessary. Based on FY 2010 revenue - and remember it would take a 2/3 vote to increase revenue under these Amendments - the budget would be operating closer to 14% of GDP, meaning that the budget would have faced a cut of about $1.5 trillion, or a 42% budget cut across every single program, including Medicare and Social Security.
Also, cutting $1 trillion yearly from the federal budget would have a devastating impact on the economy, which would likely reduce the GDP, both lowering the funding cap and reducing tax revenues, forcing further cuts, lowering the GDP further. Such an amendment could trigger a downward spiral that would almost certainly result in the gutting of most of the nation's entitlement programs.
This amendment would also largely trigger elections moot, and that's something that all but the hardest core Republicans should be opposed to, regardless of whether one agrees with current Democratic policies or not.
This amendment would enshrine in the Constitution right wing conservative economic doctrine, ensuring that conservatives could implement their agenda of cutting the budget and cutting taxes by a mere majority vote, but would require moderates and liberals to meet a virtually unattainable goal of 2/3 vote in both Houses to implement any of their policy goals, or to even undo anything Republicans might have done when they were in power. It would effectively ensure that Republicans control government, even if they lose elections. Only an overwhelming election of Democrats, ensuring a 2/3 majority in both Houses could undo this arrangement.
Is an arrangement where one party can do what it wants by majority vote, but the other party must face the burden of a 2/3 vote really something that Americans want?
Further, these amendments would:
•Make it near impossible to implement stimulus spending in a recession. In fact, it would almost certainly require severe budget cuts in the very programs that help people the most during a recession.
•It would create a disincentive to implement possible stimulative tax cuts as it would take a 2/3 vote to repeal them (assuming one couldn't just sunset them)
•It would make it difficult for the government to provide disaster relief in the case of a major hurricane, earthquake, flood, drought, or other natural disaster as it would require a 2/3 vote to do so
•It would make some common sense fixes to Social Security difficult, by making any vote to raise or eliminate the payroll tax cap subject to a 2/3 vote, putting the sustainability of Social Security into even further question
•The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would almost certainly have to be repealed. This would actually make it harder to balance the budget, as the PPACA has the net effect of lowering the deficit, but it would violate the 18% of GDP provision.
•It would almost certainly require that any steps to be taken to lower the national debt would have to be taken by spending cuts only.
•If the GOP cut taxes with the argument that it would increase revenue - and were wrong - it would be nearly impossible to reverse as it would take a 2/3 vote to do so.
•However, it would make it (relatively) easy for a party who controls Washington to do something such as Invading Iraq again, as it would only take a 3/5 vote of both Houses to declare doing so a "imminent and serious military threat to national security." - but would make it difficult to pay for such action by raising taxes as 2 of the 3 amendments wouldn't waive the 2/3 vote to raise taxes provision, even in a time of war.
•It would make the US much like California in that it would take a 2/3 vote to do any sort of real budget reforms. This situation was a large reason why California faced one of the biggest budget deficits in the nation
•It would encourage Congress to balance the budget using budgeting tricks, similar to what is happening in many states with balanced budget amendments right now, making the nation's financial situation less stable, not more stable
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 06:49pm PT
|
So, you can see, Cut Cap Balance, is actually a plan to enact a fascist takeover of the government of the United States, with the only thing being funded being the military. (you sort of wonder why they will be needed?)
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 06:51pm PT
|
what liberalism hath wrought:
"B4U-Act is a 501(c)(3) organization in Maryland that was established “to publicly promote services and resources for self-identified individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children and seek such assistance, to educate mental health providers regarding the approaches helpful for such individuals, to develop a pool of providers in Maryland who agree to serve these individuals and abide by B4U-ACT’s Principles and Perspectives of Practice, and to educate the citizens of Maryland regarding issues faced by these individuals,” according to the group’s website.
Perhaps that sounds innocent enough (although I don’t think so). Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt for a second: What’s wrong with psychiatrists seeking to help those attracted to children better understand why they have that tendency? Perhaps those psychiatrists could even be an instrument of crime prevention or of after-the-fact justice. But no. Consider: At least one psychiatrist in the bunch has been known to treat child molesters without reporting them, Bream said.
Last week, the group hosted a scientific symposium to discuss a proposed new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. Presenters expressed a wide range of views — but the thrust of the B4U-Act movement appears to be, ultimately, to decriminalize pedophilia.
As all too often happens with any kind of push for political correctness, with a twist of language, the blameless are forgotten. Let’s remember whom both the social stigma against “minor-attracted persons” and the outlawing of sexual activity between an adult and a minor aim to protect. Yes, I’m talking about children, whose innocence deserves to be preserved, whose minds and bodies haven’t fully developed yet, who depend upon adults for their moral formation. Advocacy on this issue must be on behalf of those who cannot advocate for themselves — not on behalf of those who, however troubled and however tempted, still bear ultimate responsibility for their actions."
out: pedophiles
in: "minor-attracted persons"
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 07:11pm PT
|
keep talking hedge; you only have to convince 70% of voters that barry is handling the economy well
here's some help from barry himself who claims HIS performance is the result of the following:
* "two wars we didn't pay for"
both of which barry continues to fight even as he sends drones into pakistan like he's shooting skeet, gets us into a CIVIL WAR in libya, and launches missiles into sudan
* "a prescription drug program for seniors...we didn't pay for."
which barry continues to promote
* "tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were not paid for."
and which barry extended just last december
but that's ok because barry has a plan that he will "outline" in september...let me guess: stimulus, green jobs, and more taxes--especially on those "millionaires and billionaires" who make more than $250,000/year
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 07:15pm PT
|
It would effectively ensure that Republicans control government, even if they lose elections.
Which is pretty much the case now anyway. And the Republicans are well aware of their demographic problem, and the instability of their coalition and the tactics by which it is held together.
I wonder what the Supreme Court would say about all this, particularly if the proposed constitutional amendment fails, as seems certain?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2011 - 08:25pm PT
|
Just for some scope, to make up $349 billion, we would have to eliminate, entirely, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture (give or take a billion).
Not bad idea!
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2011 - 10:26am PT
|
Under Ford, in particular, the economy took the medicine needed to lower interest rates, moderate inflation and grow.
John, by that do you mean the recession of 1974? That was a particularly nasty one, IIRC. I preferred the slightly higher inflation when Carter was in office to not having any work at all.
It's a matter of pick your poison.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!